Guest Opinion: Law & Grace calls for Judicial Reform in response to the Impeachment of Judge Thomas Porteous

“I am the President / Founder of Law & Grace, Inc, a social justice, 501 (c) (3) corporation. I am hoping that two particular statements that I posted in response to the nola.com September 11, 2010 article entitled: “Judge Thomas Porteous the crook on trial: An editorial”  might become the beginnings for judicial changes.  In case there are folks interested in joining, helping, planning some types of judicial reforms, I am offering my views on SLABBED in this kickoff phase.  Persons in accord with the idea of reform are welcome to sign up, join in, help out, give suggestions, etc at this brainstorming / development stage.  I’ve just began thinking about such an attempt today.  So updates, information, future developments will be provided either via the Law & Grace website or via SLABBED, or both.  Without any revisions, here’s what I wrote:

Edith, when the article (see the link below) was written years ago about you telling the Federalist Society about legal corruption, you could have better served Louisiana –as well as the sullied judicial system which you and your kind mistakenly think, or think that public is naive enough to think if Porteous leaves, the air will be cleaner –as if only Porteous needs to go. You should have named those persons and their deeds SINCE YOU WORK AMONG THEM –and you had enough first-hand experience enough to talk about them years ago. It seems that you deceitfully spoke against corruption while all this time you have shielded it. How can you be proud of yourself? What reason do you and your kind think you should be called, ‘your honor’??!! Did you EVER have a conscience when that article was written with YOUR words!!?? Did you use your speech and platform so you could get recognition, nomination, and then a seat on the Supreme Court? I am SO glad it didn’t happen.

Because you are part of the problem and not the solution to Louisiana’s atrocious judicial system, you deserve to inhale the stench you helped and watched foment. Mouth says anything, especially when it garners praise (and does not rock the boat). You, and those who act like they want an ethical court system need to DO something rather SAY anything which makes it appear you are ‘not like them’. Louisiana has been hurting far too long. There just aren’t enough JUDICIAL JUNKETS, hunting trips, carnival balls, college scholarship, law clerk positions, and other gratifying things to be obtained which can allow people to escape their consciences. There was a time when I cited that article. Now to me, you are an example of a person who sees the bridge is out, but you stand and direct traffic right to the place where people fall to their peril. Here’s your wonderful article:

“FEDERAL JUDGE SAYS LEGAL SYSTEM CORRUPT BEYOND RECOGNITION”.
American Legal System Is Corrupt Beyond Recognition Judge Tells Harvard Law School By Geraldine Hawkins March 7, 2003
“. . .The American legal system has been corrupted almost beyond recognition, Judge Edith Jones of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, told the Federalist Society of Harvard Law School on February 28. . .” http://www.msfraud.org/law/lawarticles/judgesays.html

Barbara Ann Jackson

20 thoughts on “Guest Opinion: Law & Grace calls for Judicial Reform in response to the Impeachment of Judge Thomas Porteous”

  1. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoowweeeeeeeeeeeee Super post Nowdy; and Barbara I praise your patriotic work and I, my elderly uncle and Parrot all want to sign up and hopefully start what is going on in the CDC in New Orleans, that is monitoring the federal courtrooms, including the Bankruptcy Court where Claude Lightfoot, Judge Porteous’ bankruptcy attorney, still is a U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee in the U.S. Bankrupcy Court, Eastern District. Since a U.S. Trustee is a person of the highest fiduciary character he should be the first federal employee to be watched, monitored and canned by your organization to illustrate that the good ole’ boy network system will no longer be tolerated. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooowweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

  2. curiousgeorge,

    That is very good to hear. I especially like that you come to the table with issues for targeting. I’m at this time, putting out this query to get an idea how many people would be interested in implementing something along those lines. I am encouraged by the response.

    As responses are coming in, I am working on 2 article deadlines, but within a week I will be providing more information about some of the things I have in mind –as well as what people like you do.

    For certain, I will keep posting on SLABBED until such time we decide to meet or / and move further with a Coalition for Judicial Overhaul (that’s just a sample name I’ll give it for now.)

    Also, for anyone who wants my email contact info, its: [email protected] OR [email protected].

    Again, thank you so much for responding. I look forward to the good things we can do to make our State a better place to live for all people.

    -Barbara

  3. Madame: Please tell me where I should deliver the M2A1-7 flamethrower which I have asked the Federal Bureau of Constipation to procure for me. Ashton O’Dwyer.

  4. Ms. Jackson: It’s time for me to get “serious” for a moment. I am declaring to “the World”, but particularly the Readers of SLABBED, that I am personally committed to “joining”, “helping” and “planning” what you describe as “some types of judicial reforms”. Please tell me what I can do. “Shooting from the hip”, some definite “problems” which I have experienced, first-hand, are the following: (1) A system where Judges sit in judgment of other Judges becomes relegated to a “circle-the-wagons” mentality, the result being that actionable conduct is not acted upon, presumably on the theory that “I could be sitting in the dock tomorrow, so I’d better go easy on him/her”. (2) The Rules Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct, and particularly the Rule which permits/mandates “summary dismissal” of a Complaint which is even “remotely” related to the merits of a decision, have got to be seriously revised. Over 95% of cases Nationally are thrown out SUMMARILY, with any real consideration of the substantive merits. This is no different from NO JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE AT ALL. The Judges know it, and have known it, and directly benefit from it, and won’t do anything about it, for obvious reasons. (3) Although the Rules make provision for a “Special Committee” to investigate Complaints, such Special Committees are appointed only in a miniscule number of cases. Rather, the cases are screened by the Chief Judge of the Circuit, who summarily throws out most of them (that’s Edith Jones, who wrote the 2003 article cited by you, Ms. Jackson), and if the Complainant “appeals” the case goes to a Panel of the Judicial Council. If the Chief Judge’s dismissal is affirmed without dissent, that’s the end of the line, and the Complainant is out on the street with nothing to show for his efforts. (4) I envision a process which includes HEARINGS before a Court Reporter, in which witnesses are called to testify under oath, presided over by completely “independent” individuals who are not beholden to the Judiciary for ANYTHING, like an “Inspector General”. This may be idealistic, and in time may become subject to the same “corruption” which exists currently, but “Judges deciding cases of Judicial Misconduct against Brother and Sister Judges” HAS GOT TO “GO”! (5) I aver, upon information and belief, that there is far too much “ex parte” communication involving Judges and outsiders, and even between and among Judges. Judges should, in my view, be beyond reproach and unapproachable. The opposite is true. Just read the current newspaper articles about the Porteous hearings, or watch the hearings on the senate Judiciary Committee website. At least with District Court Judges the public can sometimes SEE what is “going on” between a Judge and one or more outsiders. The Fifth Circuit is much more “closed” to the rest of the world, but the Department of Justice knows who is calling a Judge on his or her “private line” and who the Judge is calling. When Complaints of Judicial Misconduct involve allegations of “outside influence”, then a Judge’s telephone, computer and blackberry records, calendars and diaries should be “fair game”. If Judges want to live “in an ivory tower”, then stay there. But don’t lie to me if you venture out or let others in for illicit purposes. These are merely “stream of consciousness” opening ideas. Ashton O’Dwyer.

  5. EXCELLENT. I am someone occupied handling things on huffingtonpost, as I am trying to build momentum and have it so hot and light it at 500 Poydras, the roaches will run out. if die hard voters don’t get it, the reading audience sees that we need overhaul replacement of career politicians who pad positions with cronies. I am keeping up the articles and sending links to this site as well as lawgrace.org to keep the spotlight on.

    I am delighted to hear you are mapping out ideas and plans also. Of course, I’ll stay in touch as we keep compiling the approaches we shall use, and more serious people join our coalition.
    Check out this link. People are really fired up about what’s going on here, more than the locals. That’s very good., and it will get better. As soon as I get some free time I will contact organizations that might join with us.

  6. Dear Dane Ciolino:

    Tomorrow you will take the witness stand before the Senate Impeachment Committee and place yourself squarely in a group of Louisiana lawyer-scumbags, along with Porteous, Amato, Creely, Lightfoot, Gardner, Mole and Bodenheimer. You will do so because you have been paid and because you have no “legal ethics.” What a joke that you actually teach ethics.

    So here’s the deal. Many real Louisiana lawyers have been watching as much of this trial as we can. Your team stands no chance of winning, and you will not impress the Senate Committee like you impress yourself, your law student-subjects and some reporters. If Turley and his cronies (I love that word) have convinced themselves and their client that they can win and/or that your inconsequential testimony is worth a squirt of piss, you are all very bright fools.

    All of your collective arrogance was on display today in the form of one Ronnie Bodenheimer. His arrogance has not diminished. If you did not catch his exchange at the end of his testimony with Senator McCaskill, maybe you should watch it. Most of the Senators called him “judge” and they likely will address you as “professor.” Good luck tomorrow, Dane; many will be enjoying your ridiculous testimony. I’m sure you will embarrass yourself (to the extent that’s even possible), all members of the LSBA, Loyola Law School and lawyers in general.

    Love,

    Sock Puppet

  7. What a circus this proceeding has been. From the likes of Bob Creely who acted like he did not even know there was such a word as “crony” (yes, Bob, you are one) to a disgraced former judge and prosecutor, Ronnie Bodenheimer, being repeadtedly being improperly addressed as “judge” (no, Mr. Bodenheimer, you are not a “judge” anymore).

    It is ironic that in the same week, Reggie Bush gave back the Heisman trophy, and instantly elevated his status/character by doing the honorable thing. You, Judge Porteous, should follow the example of Reggie Bush and return the honor that, we the people, bestowed upon you. Resign and save everyone in Louisiana the further embarrassment of this spectacle that brings dishonor on the State, bar, and bench.

    Also, Sock, I could not have said it better regarding your assessment of Dane Ciolino. If you hold yourself out as an academic, you are supposed to refrain from being a hired gun. You cheapen and sully your reputation as an “ethics professor” when you will defend the ethics of anyone willing to pay you.

  8. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOwweeeeeeeeeeeeee Sock, you just hit a tape measure job out of the park with your post and the “Great Dane” Ciolino.So I too await more arrogance from Professor Turdly and the “Great Dane”(who was at the side of and defended Whitmer’s corrupt crimes in JP).I am encouraged to hear many attorneys like youself feel as I do after watching the arrogance of the defense team and the rediculousness of their arguments. Seeing the anger of the Senate panel this should be a learning experience for all the other scumbag attorneys who might anticipate defending other unethical judges as to what you should not attempt to present as evidence to defend a corrupt judge.I hope the Loyola Law School chancellor watches the “Great Dane” cause I for one will be writing him encouraging him to change the law school course which professor “Great Dane” teaches to “How to Defend Unethical Behavior 101”. Seriously, I will be writing the chancellor and telling him that professors such as Turdley and the “Great Dane” are reasons we have corrupt judges and both should be ” given $2,000 in an envelope” by their respective law schools when they arrive back on campus and told to go find a “real job” creating a more ethical and moral legal society.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOwweeeeeeeeeeeee

  9. As a long time skeptic of the ethics of the legal profession in general and judges in particular , I must say I am mesmerized watching the Porteous senate hearings on C Span . I can envision a new HBO series based on our judicial cronies . By the way , is the Beef Connection still open ? Sounds good for both food and conversation.

  10. Thanks George. Maybe we can have lunch at the Banana Connection with Dane when he returns. Do you think Great Dane and Turdley will collegially address each other as “professor”?

  11. Don Gardner’s testimony is enough for him to be charged with perjury today. The Soprano’s have nothing on this bunch of corrupt judges & crew.

  12. Was he lurking last night or this morning? It seems like the slabbed actually affected his testimony . . . or maybe that was the fact that he realized what I predicted about the Senate Impeachment Committee last night. I have to admit, it seems like he suddenly realized his predicament and came clean, at least somewhat. Good for you, Dane.

  13. Well, you know Sock Dane has stopped in with us a time or two. 😉

    I suspect what’s been posted here has not been lost on him.

    Offline a reader thought Turley mishandled Dane opening the door to a revealing cross examination.

    I’ve been billing of late not blogging so I’ve not seen the testimony to comment beyond the reader observations we’ve been emailed.

    Stick around Belle. Magnum JD is putting on the Ritz for ol’ Jindy. Republicans love trial lawyers after all!

    sop

  14. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooowweeeeeeeeeee Sock, I agree with you the Great Dane looked like a dog circling around and around not being able to get comfortable to know exactly where he was supposed to take his “prearranged, prepaid” dump. In the end, the panel’s questions to the Great Dane showed him where to dump, right on the face of ole’ compromised Ortous.Didn’t see the Great Dane though stick around too long though to scratch with his back legs to cover his mess. Guess his parents never showed him how that’s done.Can’t wait till Turdly puts on his next witness, “Mr. Mamou”, the grand daddy sire of all these wonderful 24th JDC Judges who mostly came out of the JP D.A.’s Office. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoowweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *